sure telephone and are available in the u.s. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it's monday, march 18, 2013. on capitol hill today, leaders are working feverishly to hammer out a budget deal with the current government funding measure now set to expire in less than 10 days. meanwhile, the white house let it be known late last night that president obama will announce today his nomination of assistant attorney general tom perez for the open labor secretary seat on his cabinet. and at the national press club here in washington this morning, republican national committee chairman reice preibus is set to release a report for a plan on how to

expand the party in the future. and that's where we want to begin with you this morning in our first 45 minutes on the "washington journal." we want to hear from republican callers, just republican callers today about this report and the recommendations in it. in these first 45 minutes, we'll set up the phone lines for republicans in the eastern and central region at 202-585-3880. in the mountain and pacific region, republicans can call 202-585-3881. you can also catch up with us on all your favorite social media silingtse, on twitter and to ook, or email us journal@c-span.org. i want to take you to the statement yesterday. he was on cbs' "face the nation" to talk about this new report. here's a bit of that now. >> for the first time in our party's history, we're not talking about having a few

people down the hallway working on outreach and inclusion. we're going to be announcing a $10 million initiative just this year which will include hundreds of people paid across the country from coast to coast in hispanic, african-american, asian communities, talking about our party, talking about our brand, talking about what we believe in, going to community events, going swearing-in ceremonies, being a part of the community on an ongoing basis, paid for by the republican national committee to make the case for our party nd our candidates. host: here's the report right now, and i want to read a little bit from the introduction to that report. it says the g.o.p. today is a tale of two parties, one of them the gubernatorial wing, is growing and successful. the other, the federal wing, is

increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for republicans to win another presidential election in the near future. host: you heard chairman reince priebus talking about that $10 million inclusion effort, one of the many recommendations that he's set to give at the national press club this morning. you can actually watch that on one of our sister networks at 8:30. here's the headline from the

"usa today" on that effort. republicans to spend $10 illion on inclusion -- host: we'll be talking about that in the first 45 minutes of the "washington journal" today. we're taking calls from just republicans. up first is bob from philadelphia, pennsylvania. bob, thanks for calling in this morning. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: good. your thoughts on this new effort? caller: i think that they are still missing a little bit of the point here. i think the biggest problem is uninformed voters. all they hear all day long is just background noise from mainstream media. i was a staunch liberal democrat. i truly was, until i started

doing my own research and finding my own facts. even my mom and dad were staunch liberals. they're both dead now. t like my mom always thought jack kennedy could do nothing wrong. the biggest thing that converted necessity to being a republican is when i watched the democratic convention, and on the floor, they had the vote to put god and israel back on the platform. why on earth did they ever take it out? that was like the beginning, the wake-up call for me. and then the other day, you guys were talking about chuck hagel and the new missile sites and everything. i listened to all the callers that were calling in, and they failed to mention that they're not very detail-oriented. one of the things chuck said was, we had to get an impact constituted friday the e.p.a. i thought to myself, my god, the e.p.a. is going to be able to roll with the defense department can or cannot do for the good of this nation? not one caller picked up on that. to me, it's just ill-informed

people i mean, you have to open your eyes. like i said, he was a true liberal, i truly was, but my eyes were opened a while ago. that's the problem, just being informed. host: bob from philadelphia, pennsylvania, thanks for the call. we're talking about this new report that chairman reince priebus is releasing today. here's a little bit more on that $10 million for outreach that's from "the washington times" today.

host: a "washington times" story points out to build long-term personal relationships, the r.n.c. plans to dispatch asian, hispanic, and black republicans as the chairman's personal envoying to community events and citizen swearing-in ceremonies. host: we're talking about this effort all morning with just republicans in the first 45 minutes of the washington journal. jay is up next from pennsylvania. good morning, jay. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: yes, i've called before about this issue, and i'll call again. i try to stay within the parameters of c-span rules, try to call at least 30 days or

every couple of months. host: what do you think about this new outreach effort? caller: well, i'm one of the three million white guys that didn't vote for romney. i'm one of the people that are being driven away. first of all, i just think it's interesting, talking about the challenges of asians and hispanic communities, well, how come we don't talk about the challenges that germans face or italians or polish? because those groups assimilated. i don't know how many times i have to keep saying this, it just goes in one ear and out the other -- host: you think republicans are having trouble reaching out to those groups as well? >> caller: no, i used to believe in assimilation. we used to believe in moratoriums on migration, which was best for the whole country is unity. it's not diversity. it's encouraging groups to reject the idea of ethnic voting blocs and ethnic grievance. we don't believe in that. now, the republicans, country

club republicans leadership wants to become democrats. they want to bow to the concept of the permanent ascendancy of multilingualism, the permanent ascendancy of group identity, and it's not going to work. and for every person they might reach out to, if they want to reach out and, you know, go that route, they're going to drive away a white guy like me. i'm the base of the party. and they used to stand for what i believe in, and he have a right to my beliefs and what i believe in. the thing, is i think the republican party, like pat buchanan and the late sam francis predicted, is going to go the way of the wigs. they are going to die off, and i think from the ashes of that will rise up eventually a nationalist movement, and that's just what i believe. and we shouldn't worry about the g.o.p. losing, because look at the reality of life. look at where democrats control anything, the inner cities or

places like california. they're permanently -- they're one-party places, they're corrupt, they're bankrupt. so i don't know what we're worried about. i mean, democrats don't have much to sing about when it comes to when you look at -- when they transform something, it's pretty well ruined. host: we're talking to just republicans about this report that's been released already this morning. chairman reince priebus is going to talk about it. you can catch up on that entire press conference at the national press club on c-span2 this morning, live at 8:30. here's a little bit more from that report that was released today. it said --

host: david is up next from new york. good morning, david. caller: good morning. yeah, i was watching last night , and he said it pretty good. my personal opinion is the it's like is strong,

background noise, and my personal opinion is -- the role of government today is feeding the government, and the press and the media in general seems to be comfortable with that idea. and until you go back to reagan's message, which was that government is not the solution, but it is the problem. until we can be honest and look and realize that, well, i don't see -- i don't see too much -- too much more the republicans can do. host: david, while i have you, let me have you listen in to this piece by james taylor in today's "washington times." i think you might be speaking to some of the issues you bring up. the headline is "a culture war

the g.o.p. must win." james taylor, director of of a conservative political action committee, writes -- host: the universities, the media, the entertainment industry, and the unions must be described as what they truly are, fundamentally political institutions that operate at the service of the left.

host: david, your thoughts on that column by james taylor. caller: well, i think it's pretty right there. i'm a "wall street journal" guy, and i like their editorial page. if everybody in the country were given a free subscription to the newspaper and be able to read it, if they took the time, which i find people really -- eighth lot harder to fathom. host: so it's not all media that is the problem? >> no, no, no, it's the mainstream media. it's the background noise. people really connected to this argument. it's not painful enough yet, i guess. to me, it's clear. but the clarity of the thinking in the "journal" for me is it's their editorial page. if everybody were to get that and read it, because there's great stuff there, that might do it.

host: david from auburn, new york, this morning. want to play a little bit more from reince priebus' appearance on cbs' "face the nation" yesterday. this is him when he was asked about the overall message of the republican party. >> i think we've got to do a better job relating issues to people's lives. i mean, when you're talking about, let's just say, the debt, right? it's not just a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of what happens in your life. are you going to have the money to send your kids to school? is our government spending too much money servicing the credit card payment on the debt? are you going to be able to live the american dream? is your employer going to be able to give you a raise because the government needs more money to run their company? we have to relate things to people's lives. we to win the math war, which we do a good job of, but we're going to have to learn how to win the heart war, and that's in presidential elections what is plaguing our party. host: and that was reince priebus on "face the nation" yesterday. our last caller talked about the "wall street journal." here's "the wall street

journal's" front page talking a little bit about this effort to narrow the digital gap --

host: we're taking your thoughts on all these issues and the r.n.c.'s big new report out today. bonnie is up next, republican from worcester, ohio. good morning, bonnie. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: good, good. that article is just about what i'm thinking of. karl rove, we have got to get rid of him. right now in n our state, we are going to start a coalition in the state party, and we have different people that have come in, organizations, and one of values he faith and organization. they want people of faith -- and as a christian, i want to

be a part of this. but one thing the republican party has to do, we want to stay with our principles that we have on our republican platform, and we do not want karl rove to tell us that social issues do not matter in society. we are very distrustful of the republican party. it's hard for me to back the republican party when one of our own is -- as i think you probably know -- just came out saying he's going to change his mind on this marriage thing. the republican party has to stay with the principles of our platform, and it's the people that run -- they don't like our platform, they need to move over to the democratic platform. i think karl rove is just going to hurt our party. host: craig is calling in on the republican line. thanks for calling in this morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: for years i have said

that there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between democrats and republicans. except for the fact that republicans basically want to control your morals. democrats don't care about your morals. more and more through the years -- i'm 62 years old -- i've watched, and it seems like on a national level, every time republicans start talking about morals, like the todd akins, the guy from indiana that took out lugar, every time they start doing it, they lose support. i'm not saying morals are not important, but they should be pretty much left at the state level. on a national level, you cannot be legislating morality. it's hard enough to do it on the state level.

in short, the national republican party has got to get out of the morals of business. about all i have to say. host: do you think the last caller talked about sort of a divide in the republican party? do you think there is a divide between the republican establishment and folks in what's been described as the party wing, the tea party wings? is that something that's going to hurt republicans in the years going forward? caller: actually, i believe the new breed coming in, the pauls, the lees, the blakes, all of that bunch are going to be good for the republican party. mccains and people like that, they're a dying breed. deal making, behind the closed oors, they're a dying breed.

the electorate today is not listening to them. and to be honest, i don't blame them. host: craig from tucson, arizona. here's the headline from the fix political column in "the washington post," can the republican party conquer its great divide? host: the question is can they keep the party together for the

battle and soul of leadership mantel of the g.o.p. can be fought out in the 2016 presidential primary process? host: you can read that full column in "the washington post" today. on the hill, as we talked about earlier in the show, the debate this week about a spending bill ahead of that spending bill that's set to run out on march 17, here's the headline from the "baltimore sun," "senate -- ding spending bill"

host: here to talk about what's going on in congress and that budget deal, we're joined by a staff writer of "the hill" newspaper here in washington, d.c. talk a little bit about that spending bill and what the timing is this week. guest: yeah, thanks for having me on. this is the early work for the senate this week. the senate has to figure this out quickly because it wants to get to the budget resolution that it's worked up.

so they are hoping they can do this today. we'll be eagerly watching the floor when they show up in the early afternoon to see what they can announce. have they reached a deal on amendments? will there be any or token votes to just appease some people, and then they hope to finish this today or maybe early tomorrow at the very latest. host: and if they can finish it by tomorrow, talk about what's on tap for the rest of the week. you say the budget deal. guest: yeah, they're really eager to get to the budget. and this is the first time we've seen this in four years. the last time was in 2009, so they've skipped three of them. this is their big comeback, right? many people think this is forced by the house passage of the no budget, no pay act, which netens no pay for members if they don't pass a budget. very soon after that was passed, even before, democrats were saying, we'll do a budget, we'll do one this year. so that will be a big thing to watch. we haven't seen this in a long time with the house and senate both moving a budget. the house will take up its

budget plan as early as we think tuesday, and then the house will also probably hold a bunch of different votes on budget from the congressional black caucus and the progressive caucus and republican study committee. we might see ones like that to compete with what budget chairman ryan has put forward. host: and timing-wise, in terms of recess coming up, they have to get this done by next friday , this funding deal on the government budget, correct? guest: you mean for the 2013? host: correct. guest: yeah, that's through the 27th. but with so much going on, we do expect this to happen. we could be surprised. there could be some agreement worked up to maybe put some money back in -- you were talking about amendments to help offset the sequester a little bit. it's possible you could see some shifting around of money. what you're not going see is what obama wants, which is let's turn some of the cuts into taxes. but at any rate, we think early

this week we'll have a clear sense of getting this done t. may have to go back to the house if the senate does amend it, and then the house i think would quickly pass it. host: stick with us real quick. senate majority whip dick durbin was on fox news sunday yesterday talking about the continuing spending resolution to keep the government funded and timing on what. i want to play that now. >> this is all very important, i understand, but we have work to be done in just a short period of time. i urge my senate colleagues, let's be sparing in the amends. let's get the c.r. passed. we can do it and do it quickly this coming week. host: before we let you go, if they don't get this done this week railroad company we thinking members may come back from recess next week before the 27th? is there any talk of that? guest: there's been nothing that i've heard, and i mean, i just wouldn't -- i wouldn't be too speaked by this. i think they will get it done early. i think they'll know by today,

we'll be able to rough out a schedule after we hear where the senate is on amendments. i mean, i don't know how else to put it other than i'll bet a little toe of mine that they'll figure this out pretty quickly. the shutdown threat has always sort of technically been there, but it's never -- it hasn't come to pass. i think republicans learned their lesson from 20 years ago, and i think both sides seem to be playing pretty fair on this sort of issue. in fact, that's why we got the six-month resolution last year. they want the shutdown out of the way. we've seen that time and again. i wouldn't be biting my nails over a government shutdown at this point. host: thanks so much for joining us. guest: sure, any time. host: we're spending the next 20 minutes or so this morning talking about, with republican callers, that plan being released by the r.n.c. today, their growth and opportunities report, and efforts to reach out ahead of the next elections. carl is up next from

norristown, pennsylvania, to give his reaction to the report. go ahead. caller: yeah, hi, good morning. i was looking at the opportunity, and being an old korean war veteran, it took me way back to why i became a republican. three or four of us went into the 1951 korean war, and we were going to college, and this -- this joined up, so i joined for four years, came back, and took advantage of the opportunity to go to college with the government pay force, so that's why i became a republican. and i've been one. you know, we believed in go west, young man, and today it seems like everybody believes in waiting for the post man. you know, my life -- at my age, you know, i just changed it here where opportunity has -- it's just not there for people who would rather let the government do it for them.

and it's just the way i feel about it. host: carl from pennsylvania this morning, a few reactions coming in from our social media . monte writes in, g.o.p. leaders have to learn how to understand , accept, and appreciate different cultures of religions and beliefs and value diversity. monty on twitter. dirty water on twitter, jim writes in, the hate of ours in the black community is a train that has left the station years ago. in our facebook page, leonard writes in that republicans are not good at self-evaluations. they think they're perfect and that the voters are dumb. they call us low information. until they change that, they will continue to lose. we're taking republican calls this morning on the subject. danny is up next from ohio. danny, thanks for calling in. caller: hello.

host: go ahead. caller: yeah, i just think the national republican party needs to quit cramming down -- their candidates down to the reagan democrats, which i started as a reagan democrat. i think that's where the party's going. i work in a union shop, and that's what you hear from ranking democrats is the party keeps cramming down these candidates like mitt romney and people just will not vote for them. host: danny from ohio this morning. one more quick of reince priebus on "face the nation." he was talking about the schedule changes that he wants to make during the next presidential campaign for republican candidates. here he is again. >> i mean, they're not taking candidate financing anymore, and i don't want to bore our listeners, but here's what i'll tell you. one of the reasons why mitt romney was a sitting duck for two months over the summer was that under the campaign finance laws, he couldn't use money

that he'd already raised until after he received the nomination for president in august. i believe that our primary process is way too long. i think our calendar needs to be looked at. i think our debate calendar needs to be shrunk. i think we had way too many debates with candidates slicing and dicing each other, and i think they had to wait too long to get to the convention. i'm calling for a convention in june or july. we're going to set up a commission that's going to make that decision. i'm going to be a part of that. i'm going to chair that commission. ut no more august conventions. scommoip we're taking republican thoughts on those changes that reince priebus was talking about. give us a call. the phone numbers, we'll put up for you. we're doing our lines regionally for republicans just in this first segment of the "washington journal" tosmede a few other stories that are out there -- obama to pick tom perez for labor. that's the headline of the

politico story this morning. president barack obama on monday nominate tom perez to be his next labor sefpblgt the white house has said perez, 51, is an assistant attorney general for the civil rights division. if quermed by the senate, he would replace hilda so will i ee -- hilda solis, who resigned in january. an official lauded perez for settling the nation's three largest fair lending housing cases, boosting enforcement of human trafficking laws, and protecting rights of veterans and students. he also led the justice department in challenging the voter i.d. laws in texas and south carolina. the story goes on to note that perez's confirmation hearings are expected to feature more questions about a scathing inspector general's report released last week that revealed internal racial hostilities in the civil rights division and found perez gave misleading public testimony when he said in 2010 that political appointees cannot make the decisions to drop prosecution of the new black

panther party members. you can read that whole story in politico this morning. to want get to your calls though on this subject of the changes in the republican party, this plan for more outreach, scheduled changes with the conventions and primary. al sect next from colorado. good morning, alec. caller: yes, good morning. i think that rand paul did really well at cpac, and marco rubio is pretty good as well. i just want to say that people like mccain, they served honorably in the military and stuff like that. however, it is time for a change, a new kind of republican party that can reach out to a lot more people. the demographics of america changed, i guess it's a little bit more moderate now. it used to be a center-right nation, and now it's probably center-left, so we probably do

need to move the needle toward the center a little bit. as for rand paul, i really do like the fact that he had that 13-hour filibuster against the drone strikes. ainge locality of people, even from the left, supported him on that one. host: alec from colorado. will is up next from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. will, what do you make about the changes to the g.o.p. primary schedule that reince priebus was talking about there? you had a debate in the earlier convention. >> i think it could be helpful. ultimately what i think the major issue is, the candidates were put forth for the american people, majority of our voters are low-information voters and really do not comprehend the issues and how complicated it can get. and you got a guy by the name of chris crestee, whose approval rating is sky high, one of the most popular governors, and he's not even invited to cpac. these are some of these issues,

and these are why republicans are losing. this past election, the presidential election, i mean, mitt romney didn't have a chance. i mean, you got ron paul, who wasn't even open to come to the convention, and then his son, rand paul, you know, he does the filibuster, and he's waking some americans up. it's just something republicans got to do, and we got to do it right now. we got to inform america on what these problems are and relate it to their everyday lives so they can understand. and give them a pass for growth, for freedom, for liberty, let them make their own choices, give them more money as they could spend, and i mean, you can't go wrong with that. but these candidates wary putting up against the democrats can't win. we need guys like rand paul, chris christie, and we got to take it there. host: a few more reactions on twitter. i like how the r.n.c. always

blames the process rather than their performance. and amy writes in on twitter, growth and opportunity were euphemisms used at cpac to justify the same old ideas with no real game plan to achieve ither. sthaffs the political action conference that happened last week and over the weekend just outside of washington, d.c. carl is up next from martinsville, west virginia, a republican from martinsville. carl, what do you think about the changes to the republican primary calendar and the idea of less primary debates? oh, it's a good idea. but the reason we're losing, our children are actually being indoctrinated in the education system. this teacher's union, they are teaching our kids the liberal philosophy, and if we could

infiltrate the educational system and the media, we would probably have a better chance. host: and how do you use that? what changes need to be made in order to do that? are you not happy with current conservative outlets that are out there? caller: i would actually pay for the education from some of these conserve tizz so they could get into the school system. host: carl from martinsville, west virginia, with another call there at home this morning. here's a story from the "usa today", a few other stories we wanted to point out to you. relatives kept on campaign payrolls. an investigation that "usa today" did, 32 members of congress dispensed more than $2 million in campaign funds to pay relatives' salaries during the 2012 election cycle, a "usa today" analysis at the most recent campaign record shows. law makers have hired their children, their spouses, aunts,

parents, and in-laws as consultants, account acts and record keepers, the examination shows. in some cases, multiple members of the family have joined the payroll. host: here's a chart that goes with that story to talk about more than two dozen members who use campaign money to pay their relatives' company during the 2012 campaign. bobby rush being at the top of that list, spent about $147,000 that went to pay for the salary of his wife. that's about 30% of the total campaign fund.

you can check out the full report of figures that were reported in members campaign finance reports in "usa today" this morning. i want to get back to this question of changes to the republican party, this growth and opportunities report, and changes to the primary calendar. miguel is next from ben franklin, texas. good morning, miguel. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i'm actually in corpse cris, texas, but it really -- corpus christi, texas, but it really doesn't matter. the changes that the republican party should make is that trying to get in touch more with the youth, i mean, democrats were out there, obama was out there with the children, and i mean, also with, like, it doesn't matter, but he was still getting out there. and people see that, and that's what they want. they don't care about information, really, because

all the voters, they're low informed. and so, i mean, i think that the republicans should, my en just come out -- just -- host: i think we're losing you there, miguel, but thanks for calling in. we'll try now brad from greenville, south carolina, a republican as well. we're talking about -- we talked to just republicans in just the first 45 minutes of the "washington journal" today. good morning, brad. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: i think we should keep it simple and go back to the thoughts of ronald reagan and stop conservatism and just go back to the good old truth that is worked back then, that reagan laid for the incredible ground work of the economy in the 1980's and 1990's. clinton helped to some extent, ut then he created and repealed glass-steagall, and

everybody blames it on george bush. the conservatives who didn't do much for the letter peace, we tried to expand under karl rove, the voting process, and giving more to hispanic community, and we didn't get one increase in vote in that eight-year period so. what makes you think that we're going to give amnesty and all the set get a bunch of votes? it's fraud, and it's another really ploy by the democratic party to keep promising and benefits to everybody who will vote for them no matter what. scommoip we're going to talk about immigration in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. but we still have about five minutes left in this segment, if you want to call in to give us your take on this growth and opportunities report that was released today, or if you think hanges in the republican debates would have helped republicans in the 2012 election. a couple of other stories to

point out, the front page of the "new york times" today, tax credit or spending labels, but in congress, fighting words.

host: we'll talk about that more in our third segment this morning. we'll have grover nor quist, president and founder of americans for tax reform joining us in that segment. one other issue or one other piece of news going on this week is president obama's trip to israel. front-page story in "the washington post" about that. public wants u.s. out of the middle east dispute, according to a new poll, a new "washington post"/abc news poll that goes along with that sfwore the president's visit to israel. the poll finds that by a wide margin, americans sympathize more with israel than the palestinian authority when it comes to thorny middle east politics. with president obama headed to israel and the occupied palestinian territories, barely more than a quarter of all americans want the administration to take a leading role in peace

negotiations there. that according to the abc news/"washington post" poll. they ask, are your sympathies more with israel, the palestinian authority, or neither, 55% said israel, 9% said the palestinian authority, and just 35% said neither or no opinion.

host: want to go to john now from woodville, ohio. john, give us your take on this growth and opportunities report by the republican party today. caller: well, i'm not quite sure that i agree with the direction that the g.o.p. is actually taking now. they're fighting an issue that it's going to be very difficult . i mean, when you have an administration that gives away food stamps, they give away cell phones and they're promising everything, the trouble is, the pide piper has to be paid, and what's happening now is obama has always thought about -- he said he's for the middle class. trouble is, had he gone to the gas station, have you gone to

the supermarket, and also, have you looked at your paycheck? he really says one thing, but he does other things, and it's coming around. i think the g.o.p. probably on't do any good until the american people see what the promises of the democratic party really are. they can take the talk, but unless they get an opportunity to actually do something for the american people, for the american academy, i think that we're just kind of sitting there waiting for things to happen. you know, the debates were there. i agree with that, with previous, and they just cut each other out, but then obama just ran on the bandwagon. it's kind of a complicated thing, but i'm hoping that they can turn things around and get our country back on the road again. host: you bring up the issue of free phones. that became an issue in the

election. stay tuned for the last segment of the "washington journal" today. we'll talk about the fund, the federal fund that helped fund those phones. but up next, we'll talk about the latest developments in the debate over immigration reform. and later, grover nor quist will give us his take on the two sides reaching a grand bar ban over the budget. we'll be right back. >> a more private first lady, elizabeth monroe refused to continue the tradition of making social calls to washington's political society. she spoke french inside the white house and gained a reputation of being queenly by her critics.

we'll explore her relationship with her husband, james monroe and she close friendship with her successor, louis acatherine adams, who was the only first lady born outside the u.s. we'll see the important role she played in the 1824 presidential campaign of her husband, john quincy adams, and a complex relationship with her mother-in-law, former first lady abigail adams. we'll include your comments and questions by phone, facebook, and twitter, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> you're looking at the next industrial revolution. this is an innovation company. these two tools empower people to make them. and it works by building up layers of plastic until your model is done, and then you take it out of the maker bot and you have something. >> it's when you go out, when did you to your coffee shop,

you're in starbucks somewhere, and you want to use an open wifi network. you don't know what the guy sitting next to you is doing. is he looking at your data? we have to develop something to work on tablets and mobile phones. no one else has done that. >> he had a fever today. >> ok, well, since you have a fever, we can go ahead and initialize the digital otoscope. this is used to look at the patient's ear, nose, and throat. >> what this is about is to deliver the highest quality, lowest cost healthcare in america. our vision is to create access to healthcare in consumer pharmacies all across the country, and empower the health systems and doctors there where it's convenient for you as a consumer and let you have a brilliant experience with healthcare, which is unlike what you probably have today. >> the latest in consumer and tech from this year's consumer electronics show, tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 astern on c-span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: for the latest developments in the debate over immigration reform, we're joined by national immigration law center executive directory, marielena hincapie. ms. hincapie, we're seeing reports that both the house and the senate are working on separate proposals on immigration reform. what's the latest on timing for when we're going to start hearing details of those efforts? guest: we're hoping that the timing is very, very soon. congress goes out on recess on thursday, and so we're hoping that at least on the senate, that the bipartisan gang of eight will announce that shortly after recess, they will be introducing legislation and moving the process as quickly forward as possible. there's a lot of momentum. the political wind is really behind them this time. i think the fact there's so much effort, both on the republican and democratic side really gives it a lot of hope. host: this gang of eight, we know, we've heard from them before. what are we hearing about details that the senate proposal will include?

guest: well, it will be a comprehensive proposal for common-sense immigration reform, and a number of the things that they have been negotiating are what does that road to citizenship look like? how long will it be? will it have a road to citizenship or not? and on the senate side, there's definitely agreement that there will be a road to citizenship, and they've been looking at the latest details, that the path to citizenship would probably be about 10 years of temporary legal status, so individuals will be able to come forward, come out of the shadows, get work authorization, and work in the united states lawfully, but they would be in a temporary status for about a decade, and then after that point would be able to apply for a green card and then event we'll citizenship. host: and senate majority whip dick durbin was on fox news sunday and asked about the issue of immigration and proposals for reform am here's what he said. >> but i feel good about it. there's a feeling in that room that we have a responsibility to this nation after 25 years

to write an immigration law that we can live with for generations to come. >> what's the biggest problem? >> well, there are several problems. we're dealing with border enforcement, which is very important on the republican side of the table. we're dealing with the question of the 11 million people paying their taxes, having a path to legalization and then ultimately to citizenship. tough issues, but we're coming together, and i think we can do it. i have a positive feeling. host: and dick durbin seems very optimistic there. talk about some of the road blocks that he was talking about. >> the road blocks to citizenship could be many. we are hoping that the road so citizenship is as broad and as inclusive as possible, otherwise the actual immigration reform just will not work. among the road blocks is, for example, will there be -- or how will the metrics be defined in terms of border security? the administration has spent over $17 billion just in last fiscal year alone on border and interior enforcement. that's more than all federal

law enforcement agencies combined. one of the questions is, how will we define when the border is secure? because that's one of the requirements that the republicans have put on the table before people can actually then get behind, get in the back of the line, and onto the path to citizenship? host: we're taking your calls in this segment. the lines all open. democrats can call at 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. i happened penalties, 202-585-3882. we will take your questions on the proposals, comments about immigration reform, and its chances for passage. what is the national immigration law center where you work? guest:, so i'm the executive director of the national immigration law center, where a legal advocacy organization. our mission is to defend and advance the rights of low-income immigrants. we we'll look at it, for example, i am an immigrant from

colombia. my family came when i was 3. education is a critical pathway out of poverty. so we look at access to education, workers rights issues, access to citizenship, for example, whether it's part of a dream act, which we help to draft back in 2001 and have been leading the legislative campaign on that. we're looking to reform our immigration law so that they benefit all americans. host: and what are the issues that immigrants face that are different from high-income immigrants? why focus on them? guest: the main reason is there are many barriers to achieving the american dream, and definitely one piece of that is access to education. so, whether you're going to elementary school or high school in alabama, for example, we had a couple of years ago something that requires school administrators to verify the immigration status of children and their parents, which serves

as a chilling effect for parents who are afraid to send their children to school, and we know that education is such a central component of ensuring that we have a competitive and well educated workforce. host: maverick writes in on twitter with a question -- how will visa and visa status be addressed in immigration reform? guest: that's a great question, maverick. visa and visa reform is a central component. the immigration reform debate right now has a number of pillars, so to speak. one is ensuring that the 11 million aspiring citizens that are currently here who don't have lawful status are able to get on to that path to earn citizenship. second, that people who have been in waiting in a visa back log, if you're from the philippines, for example, you may be waiting for 10, 20, 25 years to be reunited with your family members. but those visa back logs are dealt with that the per country

capita paths are taken off, and that visa numbers are increased so that we can reduce that visa back log, and those who are currently here can actually get into scompline eventually become citizens. host: front-page story in the "usa today" this morning, an immigration food fight. visas are the low-hanging fruit of any new effort. at stake, the stability and price of u.s. produce and the first comprehensive legislation in a quarter century. how tough a road block is the visa issue going to be, or how tough of a hurdle is it to overcome? guest: the agriculture sector in particular is extremely dependent on migrant workers, and that is one of the areas where, unfortunately, negotiations seem to be quite apart, but hopefully those farm worker advocates and the agriculture industry knows that this is necessary for our country to ensure that we have visas available for agriculture

workers, that they too have a path to citizenship, and most importantly, that their rights as workers are protected and u.s. workers' rights are protected as well. host: another question on twitter, how is the national immigration law center funded if guest: we're a nonprofit organization, so we rely on private foul ball additions and individual donations. host: i want to go to richard from south lyon, michigan, on the independent line. richard, good morning. richard, go ahead, sorry. caller: there's no problem with our immigration laws. the problem is that it's mostly mexicans that are coming over. how come we're not putting more pressure on the mexican government to keep all these people from coming over? i know they're good people. but the problem isn't with south korea. it's not with thailand. it's not with haiti. it's the mexicans that are coming over. so why don't we close our

boreders? host: marielena? guest: unfortunately, richard, that's a lot of misinformation a lot of people have. and, in fact, some of the immigrants who are in this country are from many, many countries. mexicans are oftentimes -- people think of immigration or undocumented immigrants from mexico. but people do come from all over. we have irish, polish who are undocumented, and again, if there's a diverse nation, many people from around the world want to come to our shores. we have a history of allowing immigrants to come. but the immigration system is broken. at the end of the day, there is actual consensus on that. both americans agree that the system is broken and we need to do something about it. now finally republicans and democrats also agree. host: iron patriot writes in on twitter, do we have any numbers on how much recent legal and illegal immigrants cost us in benefits?

guest: so there are actually a number of reports that are underway right now. there aren't any very recent. but the reports of studies have been done over the years and definitely show there's a net benefit to the country, both in terms of immigrant contributions to society and culture, but also that immigrants who are here unlawfulfully actually pay failed taxes, property taxes. we have a hypocrisy in our nation where, on the one hand, undocumented immigrants might be here unlawfully, but the i.r.s. says if you're here and working, you actually have to pay taxes, and here is an individual tax i.d. number by which you are required to pay taxes. overall, the studies do show there's a net benefit. host: we talked about the senate proposal that's being worked on. who are the leaders on that? guest: on the democratic side, it is senator durbin, schumer, menendez. and on the republican side, it's senator mccain, senator graham, and senator rubio.graha.

host: the house group is working on a separate proposal. here is a story from "the washington post" that lays out -- is in that group varied that group. give us until insight into what we have heard about that proposal. guest: it is very promising that, again, on the house side there has been bipartisan conversation. most of the members of this group have been meeting the last four years in secret. only the last month and a half or two that it has become public. but they are very close to reaching agreement. on the house side, that are looking at possibly passing -- path to citizenship although there are a little farther on

that. family reunification being a central component. looking at visas for low- skilled and high skilled workers. and both the house and senate are looking at the employment verification system told employers accountable when they hire undocumented workers. proposal in the house, speaker john boehner will have a say in that proposal when it comes up. this from "the caucus" column in "the new york times."

guest: yes, i think the great thing is that boehner has said he is behind this. he wants a deal to be reached. i think on the house side is less clear whether a comprehensive bill will be agreed to or whether it would be house members in this particular gang on the house side will be able to reach agreement on individual smaller bills to be conference with the senate bill. host: diana is next from the soda, kansas, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think one of the major concerns of people right now is with 11 million or more people applying through the program to become citizens is that our country is already in a fiscal crisis with our

entitlement programs. with no large number of people coming to our programs, we simply cannot afford in terms of food stamps, housing vouchers, medicaid. i have read more than once that 60% of new immigrants go on benefits. where is the money going to come from? for example, obamacare. it is a very expensive program. how are we going to fund this without further making our fiscal situation worse? guest: so, again, there is so much misinformation about the immigration system an immigrant use of public benefits. currently under law, immigrants who are undocumented are not eligible for any of the federal public benefits like food stamps or anything like that nor will they be under the proposed

legislation. both the senate bipartisan framework that has been released as well as the white house draft legislation that was leaked several weeks ago say any of these newly legalized immigrants will not be eligible for federal public benefits. and in fact, today, when somebody gets a green card and they are not eligible for the benefits for the first five years. over all, the issue you raised about the countries economic woes are absolutely true. so much pain and suffering every american is going through. one of the benefits of immigration is actually that over time immigrants will be creating jobs as percentages of entrepreneurs among the immigrant community is very high. we believe over time the economic benefits will be greater for the country. host: this subject of food stamps, affordable health care, an issue you have written about for a "huffington post."

if you was one to read more of februaryghts, from the 7 -- posted on february 7. jacksonville, florida, on the democratic line. caller: i have a comment and then a question. ok. i think the damage has already been done to this country so it does not matter what kind of reform we have in the future. just look back to 1986 or 1989 when we had the last amnesty. my question is, i heard representative gutierrez say that if you are here illegally you are breaking a misdemeanor -- only a misdemeanor on the books. is this correct? or is this a family? guest: great question. actually if you are here unlawfully it is a civil violation -- neither a misdemeanor or buying a felony. one of the major misconceptions

about immigration law, one of the reasons why when people are deported under our legal system it is considered a civil penalty rather than the equivalent of going to prison or anything like that. host: the supreme court today is going to be hearing some oral arguments on a controversial arizona voter i.d. law, a case that you guys have talked about and have done some work on. a talk about your stance on this law. guest: to the proper 200 kasich, arizona prop 200 passed by the voters in 2004. the national immigration law center is not part of the lawsuit but we definitely have been working closely with many of the civil rights organizations that have sued. this particular case has been brought by native american tribes. the reason -- arizona once again being an outlaw year in the name supposedly of trying to deny undocumented immigrants from

registering to vote, which is a non-issue because most would not dare to register to vote, they are afraid to even call the police. but here in arizona since 2004 when this law has gone into the fact, over 30,000 citizens have been denied the ability to register to vote or to show when they -- or when they were at the polls were not allowed. the lawsuit is about whether the state of arizona can have different requirements than the national voter registration act. host: an important issue for illegal immigrants -- we want to hear from them today during this segment. if you are an illegal immigrant and you want to call in and give your comments or thoughts on this subject, you can call 202- 585-3883. we could talk about the supreme court decision or ongoing efforts toward immigration reform. but that is a separate line just for illegal immigrants. .85-3883

our democrat, republican, and independent lines are also still open. we will go to our independent line. valerie is waiting from auburn, alabama. caller: good morning. this is kind of a broad, sweeping question -- two questions i have and i hope someone on your panel -- i would like to see more and more americans asking these questions that i think is what is at the heart. what is the role and responsibility of an effective government to its people and how do we create wealth when we have government bureaucrats and usurping it? how can you claim to be for jobs you usurpreation when uou from those individuals crating the jobs? host: the immigration debate playing into those concerns on

that? caller: why would it not? think about the questions. thank you. host: if you want to take that. guest: they are broad sweeping questions, valid. really about the role of government. we of the national immigration law center do believe the government has a very important role, both the federal and state governments, to protect its citizens and to help individuals have the tools that they need and have the economic opportunities they need to be able to contribute back to the community and society. host: want to go now to florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. recently my grandson turned 18 years old, and i talked to him about registering for selective service. he did. i got him the information from the post office first. i just want to throw this out

for everyone's information. who must register for the draft? citizens immigrants, document and undocumented, residing in the u.s. and territories must register of their age 18-25. that is within three months of their 18th birthday. then the next thing is, what happens if i did not register? not registering is a felony. young men and prosecuted and convicted of failing to register could be fined $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years and they may lose financially, government and foreign, job training, u.s. citizenship for male immigrants. not only undocumented immigrants within that age period have now committed a felony if they have not registered for the draft, and all other male citizens, documented, and documented or nacke dr. oz -- or naturalized u.s. citizens.

that undocumented immigrants were reluctant to register to vote. think of how many have not registered for the draft. i will take your comments off the air. you raise a really important point with selective service. one of the rare places where many young males do register for selective service. the reason is, oftentimes the way people find out about the requirement is high school where high school teachers will inform their students they will have to register for selective service. in the instances where people did not register, undocumented immigrants, let's say they were -- they are about to either apply for citizenship -- actually at the time of citizenship and comes up, that actually have been individuals who did not know or did not register. there is a process they have to go through to explain that they did not have the information or

were not informed in order to have a waiver of the requirement. it is a very minute part of the law that many young people actually do register for. host: especial line for illegal immigrants if they want to call in to give their thoughts -- 3883.85- we will go to that line. martin is in maryland. thank you for calling in. you today? were my name is martin and i have been in the u.s. for the last 15 years. sometimes it makes me very sad just to see how americans are so misinformed about undocumented workers. when i came to the u.s., one of the first thing i did was get the irs.mber from

i have two childs which are americans, they are born here. because i did not have a social security, i did not get benefits for them. two americans -- dependent on mummy and daddy. we have to pay for everything. health insurance, i pay out of my pocket. we did not get any benefits whatsoever. i do not like to use them -- even if i were able to get them, just for the fact i do not want to be published weight to the country. i pay social security, i pay medicare, money i am never going to see in my pocket in the future. host: are you following this debate on capitol hill, immigration proposals, and what recommendations would you give? there --efinitely

there will be in issue, people here only about four years or big two years or maybe one year who are going to become able to get a benefit out of these reforms. it will be set to see that people just come across the border and say -- let's get papers, right? law because ie stayed overnight visa but i did come legally. there are people with even more time than me, people here 20 years. it would be a same day have to wait another 10 years before they can even do anything. the other thing is, people will have to learn english. very lucky for the fact i was able to learn english, no problem. 50 or 60 years old, what will be but them? the one not have time to retire,

that is for sure. they are paying their share. they are feeding social security, for example. that are not going to be able to learn english at 55-60 years old. trying to generalize it so much, were basically trying to make sure only entrepreneur undocumented stay here and old people and people who come for different purposes to go back home because they will not find a way to make the reform ideal for them. it could talk about martin's situation. ofst: market is very typical many undocumented immigrants across the country -- martin is very typical. he did apply for the individual tax id number which is required. if you are working, you might be here unlawfully but you are still required to pay taxes. n, one thing that is

important to note is your u.s. citizen children, they are eligible for certain benefits because they are u.s. citizens. although you are not, it is important for you to know there are resources out there to support your children depending on what their needs are. i think he also raises an important question which is, what are the requirements people will have to go through in order to apply for some kind of earned citizenship. one thing considered is definitely there will be a panel become a pretty hefty penalty. second, people will have to pay fees for that application. the program will most likely have to be self sustaining. third, both the senate and house will be considering back taxes for people who may be did not pay taxes. finally, a requirement that people speak english or demonstrate an ability to speak english. that is one piece that is not known exactly yet in terms of -- will people have to pass a test, well then have to show they are

enrolled in school, etc.? that is one potential area for people m people martin who does speaking was very well but for those who may not have access to esl education classes. host: tokyo, japan, joining us. thank you for joining -- calling in from overseas. your question? californiarew up in and i went to school in san diego and one thing that i know this and have always noticed is it puzzles me that -- noticed that have always noticed is it puzzles me that americans cannot see this point -- americans are hiring them illegally. i would often be headed to class at 7:00 in the morning and the mexicans would be on the side of the road waiting for the construction trucks or what ever to pick them up and take them to the workplace. oftentimes i would see them start running because the immigration trucks were on their

way. i never really quite understand why that point is not remembered. guest: i think it is an excellent point. the reality is most people who are here undocumented have probably been recruited and hired by an employer. in fact, one of the central components of immigration reform, the current debate, is employers will be held accountable. the obama administration had actually been enforcing the immigration laws, has been directorate number of audits and still the workplace audits as well. and holding employers accountable more than any previous administration. the legislation -- in order for it to function, there have to be take components. people need to be brought out of the shadows and allowed to apply for earned his citizenship and secondly, employers need to be held accountable, particularly from labor law violations. if employers know they can hire and exploit workers then get

away with that, they will continue to do so even after we have immigration reform. labor law protection as a major component of enforcement of the laws is an extremely important deterrent to future unlawful immigration. host: story from politico earlier this month. senate stop on lower skilled workers. -- stuck on low-skilled workers. talk about this effort. guest: the issue of any future immigrants who come on employment-based visas is but that the fault line. chamber of commerce and afl-cio have been in negotiations. it seems they may have stalled in recent days.

both the chamber and afl and the union knows there is some political momentum behind it immigration reform this year that they can't be what holds up immigration reform. a so, we are hopeful they will reach an agreement. one of the challenges is given the unemployment rate we have today, it is hard to make the argument from the business perspective that there are not enough u.s. workers today to fill those jobs. obviously for high skilled workers, many of the high-tech companies believe there is a labor shortage. so, there needs to be at least some initial agreement about some basic things that both unions and businesses can come to agreement on to allow the rest of the immigration reform package to move forward as well. host: bill is up next from redding, pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: good morning. how were you? for the lady, i would like to explain to her -- because, you know, we have a problem -- i have been here 55 years from greece, and i came here with a

andn card, i came legal -- some from chicago, they were not legal in this country and came with a boat. i know the american way. next month i am going to europe. look and what is happening in greece. the prime minister -- 4000, 5000 people shift out of greece because they are illegal. only two wheat -- ways you can settle the problem. you have to come with the green card just like i did, and you have to become an american citizen after five years and if you want to work, you have to learn how to speak english. no crap, no nothing. this is craziness. we talk and talk and we don't do nothing about it. the guys who hire the people, 25 years in jail and confiscate every dime they got. that is how you solve the problem. these politicians, they play games. libertarian and republican and i am tough on

crime, tough on everything -- so, you people have to stop moving along to get this beautiful country like we kept all of these years when we came from europe. host: will let you jump in. guest: bill has very strong opinions about this. but again, bill is forgetting about the immigration system is completely different than it was 50 years ago when it came in and in fact different from my family. when we came, my father was able to come on and employment base visa. today it is not available. he said he hopes people can come here and get a green card and five years yet look -- later become a citizens. the 11 million aspiring citizens want this more than anything but there are no legal channels. that is not any way for somebody here unlawfully today to actually apply for a green card. and if you are outside of the u.s., like somebody from the philippines or china or mexico or india, you are waiting 15, 20, 25 years to come legally and

that is why our system needs to be reformed. host: we got a separate line open for illegal immigrants. if you want to call in and talk about these issues, the arguments going before the supreme court today, the ongoing effort and proposals in the house and senate. i am going to go to the line now. dan is calling in from woodstock, virginia. his wife is illegal. thanks for coming in. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a very, very serious issue. i married an immigrant back in 2006. in 13 months she became illegal -- she was here legal and illegal. we have a little girl. she has run off into a shelter -- i-360 to become legal. a self petition for an individual to become legal through domestic abuse. there was no domestic abuse. i am loving american citizen and i am afraid what will happen is

this reform will take place and a fraud will go on status when there was no abuse and be moved over into this immigration reform which will allow her to become legal through other means. >> it is hard to know the specifics of the case. two different issues. what is the mother is a current law called violence against women act that allowed for women or men, anyone who is a survivor of domestic violence, if they are working with law enforcement based on the domestic violence can self petition for residency. and then separately, i think the question you are raising is what happens if, based on your information, you are setting it is false, which she then be eligible for some kind of other immigration reform? the details of every immigration case is very complex and it will be important to get immigration advice locally about what the situation is there. host: another specific question

on different programs. tom writes on twitter -- what is being complicated -- contemplated to fix the h1b problem. host: -- guest: two questions. h1b visa for higher skilled professionals, that is an area where, again, the employers in those industries believe there is a labor shortage and they are trying to get that number of visas increased so they can bring more foreign workers to fill those petition -- positions through those visas. the stem issue is for science, technology, engineering or map, which again, there is definitely a labor shortage there. there is an effort to actually in -- separate legislation specifically of those industries to get a number of visas students andbring foreign nationals to be able to

fill those jobs. now, the white house proposal in itsd stemmed -- stem proposal that was leaked, as well as included the ability for individual studying in those industries at an american university, that when they graduate they would able to stay in the united states with a green card to be the to pursue and build jobs. pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: yes, good morning. my family --trace my family first came here in 1650, okay? what i want to talk about is, illegal immigrants have children and they go to the constitution, which makes them american citizens. however, if you go to the library of congress and of up our immigration laws, they are

not automatically citizens. you have to go through the law books. they had problems with that because they did not want to people from england and stuff in the old days to have children, making them citizens. there are a lot of reasons why they have that in those law books. hincapie froma the national immigration law center, your take on the reading of the law. guest: the 14th amendment of the constitution states anyone born in the united states is a u.s. citizen, and that is why children of undocumented -- undocumented immigrants born in the ninth states our citizens. this is to adjust the issue of african-americans who had been enslaved and where children are slaves, who are also considered u.s. citizen . host:bob from westley, ohio,

independent line. good morning. -- west lake, ohio. host: i would like to inform the federalat it is a offense to be here illegally. .lso a civil and our so-called president is not enforcing the law. .e put the curb on ice stand down, is what he says. nd i think if they are here illegally, you take them back just like they did in the 1980's in buses and unload them and send them back. it could talk about what the caller brought up, this -- host: talk about what the caller brought up, the stand down

order. guest: the obama administration deported more people than any administration in the history of the united states. it is very much enforcing the laws and some would argue it has over enforced the laws. the reason is that we have seen mothers, we have seen street vendors, we have seen workers, people contributing to this country in many different ways, including even u.s. citizen children and u.s. citizens mistakenly reported to their home countries. not their home countries or deported to mexico, for example, when they were actually u.s. born. the fact the administration hasn't fact been enforcing the laws. but like any agency, the department of homeland security has a memo that says because of limited resources it is exercising prosecutorial discretion, which says they will focus on certain types for deportation rather than others. then last june, in 2012, the obama administration did send a

directive to agents saying young immigrants will arrive in the united states before the age of 16 and meet certain criteria are considered low level priority for deportation, and that is probably what the caller is referring to. host: comment from clinton, maryland, on the democrats' line. caller: can you hear me ok? republican party right now is basically a southern party. and, you know, being afro main focus know the is to bring labor to the nine did states and then send them back home. the fact of the matter is these people who have come here from mexico contribute to our society. they contribute to our social security. they do pay taxes. we need immigrants in the united states to fund our different programs. t that allows people to go

to the hospital for care, if it was not for obamacare, emergency rooms would be charging these people all kinds of money and obamacare sort of took the rate down to the point where we could at least afford to take care of them. we have to realize that we could make a contribution to our society. look at new york. they have -- look at europe, a lot of countries and europe who do not want immigrants. we need these people in the country to build the country up. host: the last thought on this segment. guest: i think one of the points the caller raises is critical. when we look at what is happening around the globe and the demographic shifts in our country, all the economic studies show this country will need more and more immigrants, particularly to take care of the baby boomers who are retiring, to take care of children, to fill the jobs of working age americans. so, i am very hopeful, and we of

the national immigration law center are working closely with the administration and republican and democratic senators and representatives to enact common-sense reform to once and for all bring the citizens of -- aspiring citizens out of the shadows. host: marielena hincapie is executive director of the national immigration law center, nilc.org. thank you for joining us. up next, grover norquist joins us on the budget battles in washington and later in our " your money" segment, we focused on $8.6 billion to provide broadband and telephone services in rural area schools and libraries. but first, a news update. an abc poll released today finds most americans regardless of political views believe the united states should cease its intervention in the israeli- palestinian talks. it shows 55% of americans

sympathize with israel, compared to only 9% who side with the palestinian authorities. the rest were undecided. the abc poll was released just days before president obama's first visit to israel and the west bank as president. as the president begins his second term and is working on filling positions in his cabinet, politico reports the president is set to nominate tampere's, an assistant attorney general, to be the next secretary of labor -- tom perez. mr. perez, who was head of the of civil rights division, would take over the labor department as the president worked on a number of initiatives, including an overhaul of immigration laws and increase the minimum wage. right now on c-span2, republican national committee chairman reince priebus it is about to talk about immigration reform as part of a multi step plan to improve the gop's brand among minority voters who overwhelmingly backed democrats

last fall. he also plans a $10 million effort to reach out to minority communities across the nation this year. you can hear reince priebus at 10:00 a.m. on c-span ready. those are some of the latest on c-span radio. >> the winners have been selected and this year'sc c-span studentam competition on the theme -- your message to the present. the grand prize is josh and daniel hand high school in connecticut. 1 first prize -- once the winning videos each day next month on c-span and see all thec documentary's allam.org. ost: washington --

groverelcome back to norquist. first, your thoughts on the news of the day, the new growth and opportunities project report out from the republican national committee. the chairman of the republican national committee is having a press conference that started just a few minutes ago at the national press club talking about changes the party needs to make in terms of outreach, changes on how to nominate a presidential nominee. your take on what you heard so far. guest: first of all, it is very important to do a post-mortem on an unsuccessful campaign. republicans had every reason to believe they would not only keep the house of representatives but would capture the senate and when the white house as well. and did not happen. at the same time, republicans have 30 governors, democrats have 20. at the state level there are more republican state legislators than democrat.

there are 25 states where republicans have united control -- governor in both houses. and only 12 states, less than half as many, where democrats have full control. half the country's populism lives in republican control states and a quarter of the population lives in democrat controlled states. what is interesting if you have to take a look of what rent -- what went wrong with the romney campaign, what went wrong with five senate races and then recognize what went right when the de where the republicans one again the control of the house and because of a -- redistricting, if you want it in 12 probably for 10 years and why they did so well on the state level. host: is it a difference between the federal outlook and state outlook? guest: there certainly has been on the last several years. the state legislature -- one part of it is governors were able to put forward holistic plans that make sense and make radical change. in washington, d.c., we have sort of had this gridlock where

good ideas to put forward and go to the senate to die or the president can veto them. it is difficult for republicans with obama as president and democrats in the senate to even get votes on good ideas. we are now finally getting the democrats in the senate to write a budget, 1418 days. they never wrote a budget. how did you campaign against democrats in the senate if they do not even write down what they are for? there are differences in how you structure. i think there is a lot to be learned from republican successes with governors like walker in wisconsin, who made dramatic changes on the cost of government-run pensions, the unionized government workforce, and bobby jindal with school choice. he is planning this year to abolish the corporate and individual income tax for moving in a very different direction than the national democrats and winning elections with that approach. there is a lot to learn both

from the failure of the romney campaign and the senate races and the successes republicans have had in the state level. host: we are taking your calls in this segment with grover norquist, americans for tax reform. phone lines are open. grover norquist, known as an expert on some of the budget issues. you bring up the senate budget. we saw from budget chairwoman patty murray last week -- talk about that and how you think it compares to paul lyons budget. guest: two major differences. they certainly go in different directions. paul ryan's budget balances and 10 years and does not raise taxes and patty murray never balances and raises taxes $1.50 trillion over the next decade. what the democrats and patty murray are saying in addition to the $600 million tax increase

obama 1 in january and a trillion dollars of obamacare tax increases that most americans are unaware of -- they did not know, they never got press attention. obama never talked about a trillion dollars of tax increases starting this year under obamacare. trillion tax$3 increase over the next decade if the democratic budget passed. of course, in never balances because they turn around and spend another -- more money, hundreds of millions more on stimulus programs as well as other stuff. so, they do more spending with more taxes. does, andyan budget what i think it is interesting for the republican future -- it reforms entitlements and tax anybody over 55 from any changes but make changes so young people can still have the programs. it takes all of the 185 different welfare programs and

block grants the largest and most expensive ones, just as bill clinton did it with aid to families with dependent children. so, you have this reform of the reform of the welfare programs, and tax reform. taking the top rate for individuals to 25%, bottom rate 10%. two rates, 10 and 25 -- we go from 10 to 44 these days. and the corporate rate, which is 35% right now, the average in europe is 25. so, when we compete internationally we have hobble ourselves because we tax our manufacturing companies more harshly than they do theirs. we want to take the rate to 25, to match the european average. i would rather be better than europe. canadians are at 17% preferred i prefer the canadian rate than the european average. so, the republicans and democrats in their two budgets

really show who they are. there is also a third budget, a progressive budget, which is more liberal democrat. and they do massive new taxes on top of the ones i discussed, plus a massive new spending. so, you have a sense there are some democrats who want to go even further into big government and patty murray and president obama. host: americans for tax reform, best known for the taxpayer protection pledge. here is the pledge right here. that is the pledge that americans for tax reform asks all state and federal candidates

to sign. perhaps the more confusing part is, you have the idea of closing tax loopholes and how it fits in. closing loopholes is something paul ryan has proposed. guest: and completely consistent with the platform. -- pledge. you can summarize the pledge by saying no net new tax increases. but it spells and out because when the pledge came forward, i worked out with -- president reagan endorsed it in 1986 as part of passing a tax reform act in 1986. americans for tax reform was set up to make sure it happens. the best way to protect the tax reform is to make sure it could never be turned into a trojan horse for a tax increase. about 100 republican congressman and 20 senators signed this pledged that in this tax reform of a future tax reforms we would never allow tax

reform to hide a tax increase. periodically politics and -- this a tax reform the what they mean is they want to raise taxes. two ways to raise income taxes, raise the rate or broaden the base to bring the rates down. the pledge says no raising the rates and, two, if you want to get rid of deductions and credits, that is great but bring the rates down dollar for dollar. paul ryanhat does. host: chris on the republican line. you are on what grover norquist. caller: thank you for c-span. norquist, i think there is a big problem. perception is everything when it comes to marketing and it is the perception that the democrats are able to get across. because the democrats, they know their audience, they know who they are pandering to, they know

who they are selling to. and they treat them like stupid children. and it works. i will give you an example. you remember when the bush tax tom- first came out and shall and dick gephardt -- tom daschle and dick kept part, the minority leaders, did not have anything, but yet they come out with this ridiculous show what the press with visual age -- they had to bring the press outside. they had this rusty muffler. see, that is what he is going to get, and this is all you are getting, and basically they said there is nothing in it for you if you are middle-class and poor, he is only doing this for the rich. we know that is not true. but most people bought it. most republicans i talk to -- it is unbelievable. forget about the truth. it is the perception of the

truth. it is amazing. in terms of gridlock -- it came from them very -- from them. they say the last congress was the worst ever because they got less done. not quality, quantity. guest: very good point. look, the democrats attacked the reagan tax cuts and say they would be awful and unfair and of course we got the longest boom in american history. they attacked the 2001-2003 tax cuts and said they were unfair and yet president obama just had to acknowledge january 1 that he made 85% of the bush tax cut permanent. 85%. what that means that even from obama's definition, 85% of the benefit of the tax cuts went to middle income americans. and as a result, he made them permanent.

now, the democrats never offered to do that in the past. there was a tremendous perception. they had to admit for 12 years they had been lying about who benefited from the bush tax cuts. but we will take a -- 85% of progress is progress. face taxwe have is we rates and a tax system and the federal government, instead of being temporary, having to be re-upped every two or five years, it is permanent. so if president obama and the democrats want to raise taxes on any american, they have to look it -- look them in the eye and pass it through a democrat senate, and a republican house would have to agree. republican house is not going to allow them to raise taxes on the american people, and that is how you force a conversation about reform. the reason why there has been no reform in the obama years -- no entitlement reform, no welfare reform -- is they just raise taxes and spend more money.

but when you stop them from having the ability to raise taxes, then they have to reform government to decide how to allocate resources and how to prioritize. that is the beginning of getting reform. you are quite right that republicans need to do better at working through with everybody why they are doing things, what they are up to, and speaking directly to people. you can't always expect cbs to articulate the republican position as accurately as we might like. host:smiley 22 writes in on twitter -- guest: we have not had trillion dollars spending cuts but what we had is an agreement by the president of the united states forced on them by the republicans to reduce spending over the next decade by a trillion dollars. that is $100 billion a year. it has not started happening

yet. they just started kicking in. the sequester is an additional $1.20 trillion over the decade. so, what the republicans won in the big battle in 2011, the budget control act, was obama wanted to keep spending and he needed the debt ceiling to be increased because he was spending so much money. republican said, ok, we will raise the debt ceiling for the country does not default, but only if you agree for a dollar for dollar reduction in spending over the next decade. and so, yet $2.50 trillion of spending restraint -- not real cuts but spending less than obama had hoped. in washington that is called a cut. if you wanted 10 of something and you only got eight of something, you say i got cut two. if you actually walk away with eight. so, that was a $2.50 trillion spending reduction over the next decade. it has not happened yet. we have several problems facing

us. the trillion dollars in the obamacare tax increases that hit this decade, that begin to hit now. oddly enough, the president and the democrats in the house and senate decided to put the tax increases, the bulk of them, after the 2012 elections. so, everybody voted and now the tax increases hit. it is not helpful for the economy and i think it is going to be unpleasant for voters. from ron is up next watertown, south dakota. democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have listened to you for a long time and i find very little . don't disagree with per however, i know a little about the tax code and there are many things in the tax code, especially the business exemptions, that i very vague. and there's a lot of companies

and businesses that don't pay any taxes. and what they do is they write their taxes off. they declared their taxes a business expense which, in fact, it is not. in fact, for example, if i was going to orlando, florida, and i was going to check the price of one wing not, however, i stopped at disneyland, theoretically i could write my trip off as a business expense but in reality it would not be a business expense. and i think if you are going to run a free enterprise -- i know a little bit about the economy -- if you are going to run free enterprise, taxes have to be fair. and when i listen to the republicans, what i hear from the republicans is we absolutely cannot raise taxes on wealthy people or can we cut any government program that affects wealthy people. but for middle class people, we can raise the taxes a little bit and cut a lot of programs that

affect the middle class. i would like the reitz reece -- i would like you to respond. guest: two things. i think what are largely in agreement on the importance of getting a tax system that is simpler, lower, less intrusive, less abusive to the american people. you mentioned a lot of deductions and credits are problematic, maybe not necessary, maybe not helpful. president obama has put corporate welfare tax credit in a for all sorts of wind power and ethanol and things like that because he wants to benefit certain corporations at the expense of consumers. i think the special interest tax credit that was put in, max baucus has a collection of former employees who lobbied for getting these in. stuff was snuck in on the fiscal cliff where you have to wonder why corporate welfare

was have bill -- and it out by max baucus's former staff people to their clients. -- its a real challenge is probably legal but not a good idea and not good for the country. let us reduce, eliminate, those sorts of reductions and credits and reduce marginal tax rates. so it is not a tax increase. when you mentioned taxing rich people -- it every time the liberals want to raise taxes, they claim they are taxing the rich. but, of course, they end up taxing everybody. you may remember that the personal income tax was put in in 1913, the top rate was 7%. you had to make $11 million to pay the 7% rate on income over $11 million, in today's dollars. now, not just a handful of americans pay taxes, but half of americans pay the federal income tax.

that was a tax on rich people that became a tax on almost everybody. the tax to pay for the spanish- american war, 3% federal excise tax on your phone, long distance. put in as a tax on rich people in 1898, more than 100 years ago, the only -- because only rich people had phones. they were like $5,000 a piece in today's dollars and only rich people made long-distance phone calls. not long after that, everybody had phones and everybody makes long-distance phone calls and we are all paying a middle-class -- low income, middle income, high income, all paying a tax promise to be a tax on rich people. alternative minimum tax put in 1969 to tax 155 people who ted kennedy felt were not paying their fair share. today 4 million american families are hit by that. if we have not -- one the fight against the bomb on the fiscal cliff and made much of the amt permit it would have been 30 million people in addition.

they say we will tax 155 people and now we end up taxing 30 million people. keep an eye on trickle-down taxation. it is the way the liberals introduced taxes. we are not taxing you, we are taxing the other guy, and then the next day -- the next thing you know they are at your throat, too. host: the next budget issue, this possible grand bargain being talked about on capitol hill. senator bob corker, republican from tennessee, was on fox news sunday and addressed the issue of a possible deal with the democrats on entitlements. take a listen. [video clip] way, there is the a chance of the deal. i think the president is saying the right thing and we have the opportunity over the next four- five months, i think we will know when the president is serious by virtue of a process set up where he is actually at the table or whether he has a designee and whether he begins to say publicly to the american

people, to all americans, that he understands that americans are only paying one-third of the cost of medicare and it has to change for the program to be here down the road. but look, chris, i think republicans, if they thought through entitlement reform, would be glad to look at tax reform that generate additional revenues. it does not mean increasing rates. it means closing loopholes and it also means arranging our tax system so we have economic growth. host: your take on senator corker's rita the situation? guest: the democrats for the last two years now have been trying to say, we are for a grand bargain, we are for simpson-bowles. simpson-bowles, which a handful of republicans said nice things about but, again, only a handful -- the only real numbers in their other than the page numbers were the desire, the demand, that they take a historic revenue amount of taxes

from 18.5% of gdp up to 21%, and that would be a $5 trillion tax increase over a decade. that would be the opening bid and then will lead to talk about other stuff. but first $5 trillion tax increase and then another trillion dollar of tax increases hidden inside something that " tax reform. talking about $6 trillion tax increase and they were rather fuzzy about what spending cuts they want. if we see the president has walked into negotiations last fall and there were no spending cuts. he got tax increases because there were automatic tax hikes that he wanted to take effect but no tax increases. the idea of the modern democratic party which created these runaway entitlements and has never reform them secretly desires to reform them, this is what they really want to do, it strikes me about as likely as mark twain used to observe -- americans always want to think people want to go to heaven and

play the heart of the time for eternity but when they live here and the harps are out, nobody plays the harp. people say i really want to do that, all the time, but after i in bed. democrats really want to fix entitlements but after they are out of often do out of office. democrats out of office talk about about reforming entitlements but democrats in office, the increase new entitlements. obamacare is another big unfunded and item, a massive tax increase but still not enough to pay for it. the idea that there is the best fiction of secretly they want to do that strikes me as odd and senator corker was burned when last fall he thought he was negotiating with the white house about that and then of course they took tax increases and no spending restraint and no tight amid reform as all. so, having a conversation about how much you pay for a pink unicorn if pink unicorns existed strikes me as an odd way to spend your time. there are no pink unicorn

succumb note proper price for a pink uniform and the d's not interested in saving money. if they did, they would be for the ryan plan. host: in sequestration now -- this tweet caught my eye. he listened to four republican senators who were on c-span a lot. explain that. guest: the president of the united states, president obama, shortly after the election started in a very strong position. he just one reelection. and he had a democratic senate. now, he did not own the capital because republicans had the house of representatives. but the next thing was the fiscal cliff. and the fiscal cliff was an automatic $5 trillion tax increase unless the president, the house, and the senate passed

an alternative bill. so, he had all the cards. he had all the power. if he said, i want to keep $1 trillion of that, i want to keep two, the republicans and democrats in the house and senate could not stop us. the republicans and the house several times said we vote to extend everything and democrats and the senate said, we don't. so it will be a $5 trillion tax increase and the president said, okay, i want $600 billion. he took his pound of flesh, he got that, and then he made all of 85% from all the remaining bush tax cut permanent. that heof the money could have taken off the table and given to his friends remained with the american people. and as a result, he now gave all of his bargaining position. hat if instead he said, guys, we are going to extend the tax cuts for most people for a year. and then a year from now he would have said, well, i can

only extend part of this for another year. he would have gotten all but cut -- every time he was mad of the republicans he could say if you do that i will have to make you pay for it by coming back the tax cut when we extended >> your or you can do it every two years. why would he give up his bargaining position, his upper hand, on taxes? well, he believed he also had the upper hand on sequestration. sequestration is a lesson house and senate and the present vote on the alternative, there is a spending reduction from obama's wish list over the next decade. it is automatic. if republicans if republicans say we do not

want to stop it, it does not stop. what obama thought was going to happen because he sought a handful of republicans on shot shows saying, oh, we will get the papers -- the vapours if defense increases are not carried out. that is not where the country is. it is not where the modern republican party is. it is not even where the republicans in the house and senate are. there are some guys on spending committees that would like to spend some and that is understandable. but at the end of the day, we should probably figure out how to give the pentagon more flexibility. they need to save the same amount of dollars promised in the sequester as the rest of the government does. thepresident is judge, leading republicans would panic during the negotiations on the fiscal cliff -- be leaving

republicans would panic during negotiations on the fiscal cliff. he kept thinking they would put the sequester on the table in order to give it away. that never happened. president obama thought the republicans were retreating. oh, good, and going to get my tax increase now and republicans are about to give up on the sequestered. there were somers -- some conservatives watching from afar saying, oh, we're going to give up. moved it outside. that is clift happened. we moved forward. now republicans have all the clout in the discussion about spending restraint. host: we are talking with grover norquist, the president of americans for tax reform. in -- to him on at twitter.

@governor crist will let you know how much children are norquist willver let you know how my children are behaving as well as other news. caller: i am 82 years old and i've been doing my taxes for a number of years. each year, they become more and more complicated. i'm finding that it takes me not ours, but days and days and days to complete my taxes. half the time, i don't think they're right anyhow. and the amount of paperwork involved and the amount of requirements -- for example, i have some investments that have to be reported. it is a nightmare. when you think about the hours and days across the country that are wasted filling of these

, i feel that you should add that to your reform agenda. >> i agree -- guest: i agree completely. that is one of the problems of the cost of the tax code that we do not talk about. it is easy to talk about how many dollars the government took and brought to washington, d.c. those are numbers that the government puts out. it is in many, many man hours. you could build several skyscrapers if everybody instead of doing the tax code showed up and builds buildings. huge and deadweight loss. it is on the individual level. i have talked to some individual businessmen and women and they will tell you how many man hours are eaten up by small and

midsized companies. and you know for individuals, it could be productively employed in growth, or people could take saturday afternoon off and run their lives as they see fit. as a deadweight costs of the income tax system and it needs to be reduced dramatically. host: back to pennsylvania, but edward is on the independent line. good morning, mr. norquist. you make so many misstatements i would like to sit with you for half an hour, but i cannot. you say the democrats will tax and spend. you could label the republicans -- start with ronald reagan. cut taxes, big chunks for the wealthy, and then borrow the money to pay the bills. that is how you get that, $2 trillion, $3 killion, $4 million. trillion, $4 trillion.

we will make the government so big that we cannot afford them. guest: ronald reagan was ever in support of killing any of those programs. that is hyperbole. theer: he had a tax on wealthy -- he cut taxes on the wealthy. let me finish, please. guest: he cut taxes across the board. caller: i'm going to hammer you. he took taxes down from 70% to 40%. that amounted to trillions of dollars given away to the wealthy. you think there's a correlation between us being trillions of dollars in hole and the fact that we gave trillions of dollars away to the wealthy over the past 30 years? guest: several things. a top marginal tax rate was not cut from 70% to 40%. it was cut from 70% down to 28%, much better.

at the end of his presidency, of taxpayers plate -- paid a larger share of the tax burden. not only more, but a bigger .hare of the tax burden what has happened since the 1930's, all of the other recoveries in american history were stronger than obama's. if we had job growth -- we have been technically in a recovery since july of 2009. but it has been growing so slow and gas prices and other prices are so bad that it does not feel like much of a recovery. but technically, we are in positive growth. 2%, that is the rate that france has been growing at.

reagan had asked growing at 4% per year, -- have us growing at .% by year, twice as much what we could have died as 11 million more americans -- could have had was 11 million more americans working today. obama'sbecause of approach to government, the same one hoover took and the same one fdr took, and there recession lasted a very long time. republican line. good morning. caller: here is my question. projections for social security expenses are based on projections for the longevity of baby boomers.

country,in flyover baby boomers are getting sick and dying between the ages of 50 to 65. i've had several personal experiences with that. mr. norquist, do you know how many baby boomers have already when wearting in 1946 started counting baby boomers, how many have already passed away and are the projections for such as security really accurate when we are out here dying? guest: i do not know the exact number. obviously the most deaths take place after 56 in the united to many, not only have we missed them and their families care, but it is also

bad for the economy. it is a problem that the former soviet union, and now russia, has to more people dying in their productive years of life. the challenge for social security is manyfold. we would like to have more people working. there are 10 million, 11 million americans not at work today because of the obama policy to tax and spend rather than borrow and invest in more opportunity. when reagan reduced taxes and reduced regulations and rein in spending, you ended up with more economic growth and we created more real jobs and the standard of living increase. today, we are not doing that. we're having too much of the money cycled through washington, d.c. and we do not have that job creation. that would strengthen this ticket -- social security. and a stronger economy would

also increase people's health. host: a couple of tweet for you. john steinbeck rights in on twitter, taxed enough already, spending is completely out of control. rain in. in -- ther rights austerity you mean, constantly raising taxes to try to balance the budget, you're quite right. that is what greece and other countries have been trying to do for to about -- for two long. too long. when you try to raise taxes on them with the value-added tax and the sales tax that europeans have, or you can mean that government should work to reduce its own cost, austerity for the government. we have not been doing austerity

for the government here. no european country has seen serious reforms of government spending. the one report that i have pointed to is canada. they have been doing quite well. they took their corporate rate down to 17%. they are creating jobs and having more economic growth. they actually did ring in government spending for which had gotten out of hand like ours. jermell shows that you can do it. -- canada shows that you can do it. host: keith on the republican line. are you there? -- we will try keith again from florida on the republican line. caller: good morning. i appreciate what you're doing. but i do not believe you are

doing too good a job in the reforming part of your doings. i think that the first thing that should come out of true conservatives announce its that there is no such thing as a corporate tax. -- conservative's mouth's is that there is no such thing as a corporate tax. when people ask for corporate taxes to be raised, they are asking for a tax on themselves. also, do not believe the tax system will work until you reform it where it is collected locally and set up to washington and said of begging for it to comeback -- to come back. i believe we should have a , and youles tax, a 10% get to keep your 80%. collected locally, one quarter kept in the city, the county to keep the quarterback. the state keeps a quarter. in the federal government gets a quarter.

i would accept a fair tax. i believe it should be collected locally and sent out. you make several very good point. taxes on businesses are taxes on you and me willie by staff. when they tax the gross restored, the kors restore does not have money and take vacation. the green street store is just a legal fiction, and so is any -- the grocery store is just a legal fiction, and so is any corporation. the taxes that the store pays are simply added to the cost of every pear, peach, and apple that you buy. time,o this all the targeting phone companies. governments love to tax the phone company because they hide the tax on your phone bill and you get mad at ma bell instead

about your city or state. host: will be talking about that issue in the next 45 minutes. guest: oh, ok. taxes workr business out very well. i'm with you once of a vacation. host: let's go to dan in south carolina on the independent line. caller: i had a question. be for the 1%. you know that 3 million people have more money than 300 million? guest: you may be talking about net assets. the argument i would certainly make is that we should treat everybody equally and treat everybody fairly. the government does the most damage by hurting lower income people by making it difficult for them to get ahead in life. i'm here in washington, d.c.

they spend about $23,000 per child on public schools and they do not provide an education that allows people to move forward. we need to give parents choices on how to take some of their own money and go to private schools or parochial schools or home school and give those people opportunity, so the competition can provide a better education for people. i think you're quite right, the government has damaged hopes and opportunities and abilities to move forward of millions of americans. they have regulation that kills jobs. how many americans could be building the pipeline they want to bring down through nebraska? and the government has spent four years selling that. that is 10,000 -- tens of thousands of jobs stopped by that. we need to do more exploration in alaska and other places. again, hundreds of thousands of jobs. the chamber of commerce has estimated 1 million jobs killed

by government action. people without jobs need jobs. and they need to be treated fairly without -- by the government. that is not happening right now host: governor crist, always appreciate your coming by. -- host: grover norquist, always appreciate your coming by. up next, a discussion of schools and libraries. but first, and a difference c- span radio. europe.cted on money in today's planned parliamentary vote in cyprus on a levy on bank deposits have been postponed until tomorrow. stocks around the world and the euro fell sharply today as investors are worried over the plan to attract depositors in answer. banks as a way to fund the bailout. at the opening bell on wall street, down futures are down about 75. turning to rahm, word that the leader of the orthodox

christians is heading to the vatican. a church official said the tennis by bartholomew roman one -- bartholomew i is the first be a peopleere will attendance since the church split. the installation of a final stage of a european missile defense system will not find a country. chuck hagel announced last week that plans to place long-range interceptors in poland the next decade are being abandoned and interceptors will now be placed in alaska instead due to the threat from north korea. u.s. defense and political officials on a previous scheduled visit to the polish basesl said shorter-range would still be placed as part of nato defense.

the polish side will go forward as scheduled. those are some of that kind on c-span radio. >> elizabeth monroe refused to continue the tradition of social calls. she spoke french inside the white house and gained a reputation of being kweli by her critics. the important role that we said katherine adams played in the presidency of john quincy adams. we will include your questions and comments live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. "washington journal" continues.

host: every monday on the "washington journal" reticulum. your money is being spent. -- we take a look at how your money is being spent. there is a small charge you probably have not noticed on your phone bill called the universal service fund. on your phone bill a comes up as the universal connectivity charge, a small charge there that finds a program that now has billions of dollars for it. to help explain why this fund exists and where the billions of dollars goes to, we're joined by edward white from the "the new york times." thisined the idea behind universal service fund. guest: when congress wrote the initial communications act, but wanted to make sure that people in rural areas were able to get phone service.

they established a way to -- for phone companies to subsidize the service in high-cost areas, mainly rural areas, so those people could get linked to the rest of the country as well. since then, it has evolved not only to serve high-cost areas, but also to provide service to low-income people to provide connections, telecommunications connections to schools and libraries. and also, a small part of the program goes to linking up medical facilities, particularly as well -- rural areas as urban medical facilities. host: here is a mock phone bill and the universal connect to the charge on emaar phone bill. -- on a mock phone bill. how to phone companies determine

what to charge users for this universal connect to the fund? guest: the way congress wrote the law is that the phone companies are responsible for paying it. there is no mandate at the phone companies pass that cost along to consumers. however, they all do. it is determined on a percentage basis, the long distance revenues generated by the end user. that is the formal best- definition. the percentage is now about 15.5% of the long-distance charges. for most people, that comes out to about $1.50 on their phone bill. that has been going down significantly because long- distance charges have been going down and fewer people are using long-distance services. host: we're taking your calls on this segment on your money on the universal services fund.

the lines are open if you have questions about how this fund is being used it was about $8.6 billion in fiscal 2013. that money was broken up into a couple of different programs. service to rural areas, known as the high cost fund, was about $4.5 billion. schools and libraries, $2.3 billion. and the telephones to poor americans, also known as the lifeline program, that was about 1.7 $5 billion. $1.7 5 billion. that last part is the one that might gain the most publicity in the recent election. this is the idea of where the obama funds came from in the previous election. explain what the lifeline program does. guest: the wi-fi program provides phone service to

people at 103rd -- the life line program provides phone service to people at 135% of poverty level and below. it provides an ongoing subsidy, or a charge, or a subsidy for the connection of service. command lineat phones. increasingly, it is being forced telephone service. covered land that line phones. increasingly, it is being four cellphone service. host: talk about is becoming an issue in the last election. guest: it became an issue because a cellphone is in some ways viewed as a luxury item. the thought that the government is providing cell phones to low- income americans was reviewed by some as being an unnecessary expenditure. how long -- host: how long has

that part of the program been around? that was before president obama came into office, correct? guest: yes, it was, because the migration from landline phone to wireless phones has been going on for a number of years. but generally has not been very publicized. whether aon of wireless phone is a luxury as a margrave of and at one time was viewed. anymore -- as a microwave oven at one time was viewed. any more, it is used as a necessity. about what talk more goes to the high cost fund and service for rural areas. caused a has always more to string telephone lines are to rural areas where you may have only one household in a square mile that needs service,

but you may have to string the same line over the distance that you would to string it past 15 apartment buildings. phone companies see this as very expensive and something they cannot make a return on. because their rates are regulated, the government said, we will help subsidize the cost of providing that service to these very high-cost areas. that fund has now evolved because a very large percentage of american households have that phone service. and now the thought is that an essential service is becoming a more and more broadband provision. is now transitioning to what they call the connect fund to provide

broadband service to those high- cost areas, which primarily or rural. host: some tweeds on this subject coming in. one writes in, this is a brilliant project. we paid tiny price and it benefits everyone. repeat as needed. and this week -- and this one says this program is proportionally benefits rural areas, but originated with the new deal and is supported by democrats. arehost: some tweeds on this subject coming in. one writes in, this is a brilliant project. we paid tiny price and it benefits everyone. repeat as needed. and this week -- and this one says this program is proportionally benefits rural areas, but originated with the new deal and is supported by democrats. are there concerns about folks who get the benefit of this program on the political side? guest: i think so, but it goes across party lines. one of the biggest supporters of senator cost fund was ted stevens from alaska. so many people in alaska live in rural areas and is expected to strengthen lines, particularly when you have harsh winters -- two string phone lines, particularly when you have harsh winters and hiding its costs. it is not strictly a democrat

view. as you said, a lark -- a lot of rural areas tend to lean republican. and that service is a crucial one to those who live in those areas. more controversy seems to come over the life fine program, which provides service to low- income households. that is more viewed along traditional republican/democrat lines. host: a question about that comes in on twitter. do so-calledit, obama funds have the ability to serve the internet? guest: no, they are basic cell phones. they're not smart phones. basic coverage and

have a limited amount of permanent service. they're not being used for facebook or going on twitter. strictly for voice can activity. -- voiced connectivity. host: a note from a story in a cnn money, that there are 17 million households currently signed up for the program from under 7 million just four years ago. there are two reasons for the rapid growth, first, the recession dramatically increase the number of people eligible. duringond, strictly in 2008, george bush's administration, the fcc allowed wireless carrier track phone to join the program's list of approved providers what did tracfone do for this program? expanded provided service to wireless service. as we saw, people were cutting

the cord. particularly in low-income households, the monthly expense of maintaining a wireline phone is a significant one. an increasing number of people more and more people get rid of that service gruden -- and as more and more people got rid of that service, the cost of providing and maintaining it to those who still have that went out. this transition of providing where the service for the home phone. during -- wireless service for the home phone. host: let's go to ivan in alabama. caller: i don't understand. i came from another country 45 years ago. when did this become that the government supports everyone in this country?

why should the taxpayers pay for ?omeone else's accessory if they want to connect from ago by a phone. get a job. i anderson and the economy is bad, but people work to work three jobs. if those people can find to work three jobs part-time, the people that need the phone that you say they need the phone, they can get one job to get a telephone. host: if you want to talk about some of the original debate when the universal service fund was first created. the coste thought was of providing phone service to rural areas, a farmer in rural iowa who has a job and makes a living and works hard for the deemg, but phone companies it not profitable to string up a

phone line out to this very far rural area to provide service to one household. the thought was beginning in the 1930's was that the federal government can subsidize and help the phone company to provide that phone line. and it's very hard-working farmer in rural iowa will have a connection to be able to call an ambulance, to connect with his local government, to be able to , to determineore daily prices on commodities. that is the purpose of the high cost fund, to provide service to areas that the phone companies otherwise would not deemed profitable. it is not the decision of the farmer or the present who lives in a rural area -- the person who lives in a in rural area to gets service or not. about universal

service fund and the programs it goes to. program, that is about 2.2 fiscal dollars in 20th -- in 2013. guest: that is a program to lines to libraries. the thought is that is expensive to bring those wires to a house. the thought was that the federal government can provide subsidies to make sure that community anchor institutions, schools and libraries, have service and people can go to those public sources and use them. now increasingly, schools are being opened in the evenings after school hours to allow people to come in and use internet connections and libraries, the same as they would be able to in libraries.

it is a way of perhaps cutting the costs, providing a central place for people to come within the community and use these faster internet connections, more efficient internet connections than just having dial-up, which is perhaps what they might have at their home. host: we are talking to ed white, who has spent 16 years as it -- edward white, who was spent 16 years as a reporter with the "the new york times" and was a correspondent in the los angeles bureau of the "the new york times" covering television business. we are talking about universal service fund, the small connectivity charge on your cell phone bill. fromll talk to maury's east dublin georgia -- we will talk to maurice from east

dublin, georgia. number one, for ivan, if you want to talk about the government subsidizing for individuals, you ought to look at western europe and asia and what they're doing. there is a much higher degree of subsidization which regard to the internet and phones. and a question. it may be a bit tangential, but i will ask it anyway. i know the fcc has been asking about the creation of super wi- fi hot spots. a vote onre has been this very important capability coming to the floor. i know that the telephone the services are not some of the biggest campaign contributors. if it goes through, it will be a

societal change if they allow for this vote to come to the floor. guest: there is a vote and has been a vote of the fcc itself over whether or not to adopt programs that provide for so- called super wi-fi, to use areas of the broadcast spectrum for use in providing coverage over a large area. the fcc has five members. three are from the majority party, the party that controls the white house, and two from the opposition party. they are nominated by their respective parties in congress and by the president. there is some bipartisan consideration of this thing. it has not been offered up for a popular vote. but that is what the fcc is charged with doing. the fcc is an independent agency not directly under the

control of the white house or the congress. host: speaking of the fcc, last week, the senate commerce committee held a meeting with an sec staff and the senate commerce committee member roy blunt was asking the fcc chairman of julius jenna kotowski about the money to oversee expanding broadband to rural areas. [video clip] thene of my concerns is failure to approve a drc underserved areas. -- to appropriately oversee underserved areas. havelief is that you wanted it to come in as a competitor, is that right? >> jibao things. we did adopt part of that last

year and part of the funding was that it would go to underserved areas and not to fund competitors. >> how do you allocate the underserved money? or do you? >> the money should go to underserved areas and help get broadband out where does not exist and not fund over builders. >> good. that is my concern all the time. how are we doing on getting that money out? are you in the process of further implementing that rule, or updating the amounts in what it takes to get money out there? >> yes, we got a first tranche out there very quickly, about $140 million, being used to build out to about 100,000 underserved americans. the next step, we want to balance moving quickly to support broadband in

underserved homes and do it in a fiscally responsible way. the: mr. wyatt, talk about reform efforts that are under way. what did legislation last year for reform? -- was its legislation last year for reform? guest: yes, there was legislation that helped to provide for this. the fcc then took it out and said, we want to transition this fund because a very high percentage of the country now plain telephone service, as it is known. because increasingly, the way you apply for jobs, the way you get news, the way you connect with family members elsewhere is over the internet. there is a recognition that dial-up internet service is a very slow and, to slow often

that requiretes you apply for a job on line. the provision of broadband service, faster internet service, is now been deemed a necessity. it is not for the fact that you can play games, but for the fact that you need it for so many basic parts of liked europe's -- parts of life. 8 your agrees on twitter. if you want to get jobs, they need phones. let's go to mark in virginia. -- new york. about the question is internet, but to use it to draw in cable companies. you get the cable companies here

and they say for the seven houses on the road, it is not worth it for them. they would have to pay the installation costs. it would be something like $2,000 per house. without also apply for the internet service? -- would that also apply for the internet service? my wife is a nurse caretaker manager. she cannot use dial out. with that apply also to this? guest: that is part of the reasoning behind this transition of the high cost fund to the connect america fund, as they call it, for providing subsidies from telephone service in rural areas to providing subsidies for broadband service. the issue, as you point out, in many areas of the country, where the primary provider of high-

speed internet service is not the phone company, but in fact, the cable company, which is not itself regulated by the fcc. the fcc is trying to come up with ways to provide for not companies, but the cable companies to provide this service to have incentives to build this out. that is coming through the transition of this fund. from next caller up kentucky, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i'm calling from an obama phone, actually. the programs that they're talking about was started under president -- president reagan. it was tweaked under president clinton. and under bush 43, they started offering it with cell phones. is a basic generic $15 cellphone. i do not have text or in your

text or internet. i have 253 minutes that i can call my doctors and others about it. i'm on disability for my health. i have six different doctors on constantly in contact with. this service has been a godsend. what they have been talking about in campaigns is pretty much alike. i get basic service. minutes, that is on me and i have to start paying extra minutes. host: how much money does the government give toward finding that cellphone that you used? -- toward the funding of that self and that you use? caller: if you've got a land mine, they will just reduce your phone bill to -- a land line, they would just reduce reform

bill down to $20, $25. if you get extra service, like long distance, they will throw batting for free. the cellphone, adjusted 250 minutes per month. nothing rolls over. host: is that how the program general works for someone on the program around the country? guest: yes, that is how it works. cellphone minutes have become less expensive now. the old program provided $10 per month to the cost of telephone service. now at about the same rate, you can provide much broader service through mobile phones through the provision of a certain number of minutes. when it started, it was not that large, because anyone who has a cellphone knows, the cost of per

minute charges was very high. now it is very low and very competitive rates. they are able to subsidize and provide this service. almosts a fair amount of 89 minutes per day per month. host: -- eight or nine minutes per day per month. and eight your right in on twitter. will just figured a way to spend the money since we already have the tax. what comes after broadband, satellite tv? is there any thought of expanding this to other areas in the future? guest: this has never been used to provide television services. it is to provide basic communications services. the thought is, perhaps there will be a communications service that goes beyond

broadband, and internet connections. when the service started up in the 1930's, there was no dream that broadband service or the internet or any type of commute -- computer connection and would be in existence, much less be necessary. even when internet service started out, the idea that it was going to be a necessity as opposed to a luxury was not contemplated. a satellite companies to provide broadband service. -- satellite companies to provide broadband service. it is possible, and already happening in some ways, that those providers of broadband service will be those that are able to act -- to benefit from the connect america fund. particularly in rural areas

where it is much less expensive to provide satellite services than it is to build cellphone towers or string cable for broadband service. rusty on the republican line. caller: you talk about the rural farmer and how they cannot string lines to them. why can't that rural farmers paid for his own cell phone service? and on the lifeline commercial, i seavey that ride out on a $20,000 or more harley-davidson talking about how he needs this service. it seems to me like a stocking stuffer. i'm not sure who started the program, but it is something that i think we're getting away from people paying their own fair share nowadays. that is basically my point. guest: there has been a fair

amount of waste and fraud and abuse in the program. in 2012, the fcc adopted some reforms, particularly to the lifeline program, to cut down on that waste and fraud. what it found was that there was a very large number of people who were getting the service who did not qualify under the income restriction. that has been an issue. it is something that the fcc has begun to address. i spent a lot of time recently out in rural colorado where there are a lot of farms and very few cellphone towers. anyone who has driven through a rural area and in talking on their cell phone while they drive, or you have been in a rural area and try to use your phone, you know that service can be very spotty. the only way to make it better is to build more cellphone towers.

but if you are a phone company and you have the choice between building a cellphone tower in an urban area, which will provide service to tens of thousands of people, or to build the st. cellphone tower that provides the same -- that will require the same capital investment in a rural area to 10 people, you will choose to build in an urban area because that is where you get a higher return on investment. that is that thing, just like the state built roads out to rural areas that are not as -- used by as many people as they are in northeast los angeles or angeles or inos the northeast corridor, the believe the subsidies must be distorted somewhat equally. host: we're talking about universal service fund, funded by the connectivity charge you

will find on your cellphone bill. here is a mock bill without charge there. it is a small charge, but adds up to something like $8.6 billion in fiscal 2013. you bring up waste, fraud, and abuse. miss smith writes in on twitter that it is supposed to be one phone per household, but now the deadbeats have as many as 10 in their houses, and limited tock and tax. and -- unlimited talking in texting. is that something that you are you have found in the waste and abuse? that maybe something, but every household that is under the poverty level with a mobile home service, the thought that everyone in the household is getting a phone is a bit misguided. certainly, you can take extreme examples where fraud exists and

exists and say, obviously this program is rife with fraud. there has been some. entity itself was the that made reforms to try to crack down on this. like any service that the government provides, people will try to take a advantage of it. people on both ends of the political spectrum. the idea that it is so widespread that the program should be done entity away with, i think might be a little overstated. host: now to concerns about the connecting of the internet to rural areas, a lease rights in on twitter, i guess we should have skipped the rural electrification, too, and let businesses operate by candlelight. guest: that is a good point. the government provided a electrification to rural areas because it was deemed a necessity, just like water built out and

provided to rural areas. electricity was provided, and now communications services. is the mandate of congress wrote to guide the sec -- the fcc, for people in rural areas to be allowed to connect to their local hospital, government services, family members, and others. the fcc, under both republican haveemocratic chairmaen, said this is a necessity. a viewer writes in, is there a map of where most of the free live find bones are given out? other statistics that you can use about users of the program

and the rural internet connections as well? guest: yes, on the fcc website, which is fcc.gov, they have annual reports about these programs that go into great detail about how much is provided where. these programs are administered by the universal service administrative company and they are required to report exactly where and who is getting the service. that is the way that they have found out that there were a number of people getting service who were not qualified for it. fcc.gov, there are, as with most things fcc, hundreds of pages of statistics. if you just go into the search

box and type "universal service fund" it will take you to the statistics and where they are laid out. the high cost programs, the disbursements was about $4 billion in 2011, 110 million lines supported for that program. if we talk about the life by program, disbursements were about 7.5 billion, supporting about 7 million lines through that program. -- $1.75000000000, supporting about 7 million lines through billionram -- $1.75 supporting about 7 million lines through our program. to linda from tennessee. 1180, whichte bill

been passed, seems to draw out the law, or the ability to have it in tennessee. about regulated carriers not be required to go into any geographic area that they file a notice for. it said any existing programs can be terminated after 60 days. and it looks like they just decided to opt out of this for the whole state. about regulated on thesi looked this up internet, but comcast wants to charge us $80 per month for internet, which is over $1,000 per year, and that's household's income -- this household income is about $7,500. there's no way we can absorb the additional costs. of that'm not aware particular tennessee legislation, but as with highway funds, i believe that some

, a relatively small way of subsidizing telephone service is done through the states. this is primarily a federal programming -- a federal program. this money is passed directly through the universal service administrator company to the telephone companies, which then provide the local service and it is not administered throughout state government. onhost: a gentleman on twitter offers his take on the universal service fund. the government can which but everyone on the grid and i look forward to unplugging one day. let's go to maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to let the gentleman know that i know personally two people that have their own cellphone and now they have this additional cellphone

that is given to them. afford -- can afford their cell phones and i feel like it's a waste. if you're going to be handing out cell phones, people will take them. that is another example of fraud. nobody is going to turn a free cellphone down. thatt wanted to report from my personal experience. would say that it seems like an example of waste or fraud. you should get in touch with either the fcc or the administrative services company and tell them about that so they can try to prove that sort of thing out of the program. that was the purpose of the reform in 2012, that the fcc undertow. and what we have seen now, that those reforms have been in place

and phone companies have allotted their first reports on their services under this regime and there was a fair amount of waste and fraud going into the program and now they are trying to address that. the only way to root out all fraud is for people to report that sort of thing. get the federal government to pay attention to of the particulars of a program and make sure it is working correctly. host: a question from twitter. how is a program like this similarly done in another country? but global competition, should we be able to compete effectively? guest: that is a good question -- that is antries good question. there are a lot of countries in in the east and asia

that you complete the government subsidized internet service. they build a fiber optic lines, very fast lines, to build service to the country. there's quite a bit of debate over the service in the u.s., of whether it costs more and is slower and where it costs less and is faster in other countries. to provide service to all of norway or sweden is much less than providing fiber service to all of the united states, obviously. they arethey build a fiber opti, very fast lines, to build service to the country. there's quite a bit of debate difference -- they are different sides of geographic areas. know about telephone service in other countries. i would imagine if they are providing internet service, then there is also some provision for phone service. the building a high-speed internet conne